sideswap_peg_in

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the process: deposit address generation, necessary BTC send, confirmation times (hot/cold paths), and final L-BTC arrival. It lacks details on failure modes or optional password handling, but is otherwise transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five well-structured sentences: purpose, process steps, recommendation, and a critical directive. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and moderate tool complexity, the description covers the overall flow, wait times, and trade-offs. It lacks details on potential errors or deposit address validity, but is sufficient for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by explaining the password's purpose ('if encrypted at rest') and implying wallet_name is optional with default 'default'. The mention of 'btc_send' usage adds operational meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Initiate a SideSwap peg-in (BTC → L-BTC).' It explains the output (Bitcoin deposit address) and the required subsequent step. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sideswap_peg_out and sideswap_recommend.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Recommended over a swap-market trade for amounts ≥ ~0.01 BTC' with fee comparison. It also mandates calling sideswap_recommend first for large amounts, providing clear when-to-use and alternative actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.